Local and imported in the Gulf: a new perspective from the site of Bahra 1... KU WA I T

LOCAL AND IMPORTED POTTERY IN THE NEOLITHIC GULF: A NEW PERSPECTIVE FROM THE SITE OF BAHRA 1 IN KUWAIT

Anna Smogorzewska Institute of Archaeology, University of Warsaw

Abstract: The paper presents a new perspective on pottery traditions in the Gulf during the Neolithic period, based on new data from the Ubaid-related site of Bahra 1 in Kuwait. The site yielded an assemblage containing several different pottery types, classified as Ubaid Ware and Coarse Red Ware. These pottery groups were varied in many aspects: morphological types, technology, and provenance. Their main characteristics and cultural context are discussed, as well as the cross- -pottery connections. The significance of these ceramic vessels for the Gulf population and their socio-economic context are also considered in this paper, given the new evidence from Bahra 1. Keywords: Neolithic, Persian/Arabian Gulf, Ubaid, pottery, Bahra 1

Bahra 1, a site excavated since 2009 by the earlier part of Ubaid 3 (Ubaid 3a or Ubaid Kuwaiti–Polish Archaeological Mission 2/3) (for chronological observations from the Polish Centre of Mediterranean on the assemblage, see Smogorzewska Archaeology University of Warsaw, has 2013; 2015). A larger group of potsherds provided new data on the Neolithic in associated in shape and style with the the Gulf and the character of interactions Ubaid 2 (or Hajji Muhammad) phase of that region with during is notable, compared to other Ubaid- the . Vestiges of a dozen -related sites in the Gulf (Smogorzewska units composed of rectilinear houses of 2015). While the central Gulf has been different character were uncovered there considered a major area of Ubaid presence (Bieliński 2011; 2013). The site, which in this region, this owing to the large lies in the Al-Subiyah region of northern number of identified Ubaid-related sites, Kuwait, can be considered one of the investigations at Bahra 1 and the nearby site earliest Ubaid-related settlements in the H3 have shown that the upper Gulf must Gulf (about 5500–4900 BC, unpublished have played a significant role in relations radiocarbon dating; Bieliński 2013). with Mesopotamia and the distribution of Examination of the pottery assemblage Ubaid culture in the Gulf. from the site gave a date for the occupation Two distinct groups of pottery, Ubaid of the site in the Ubaid 2 period and the Ware and Coarse Red Ware, were found

595

PAM 25: Research Anna Smogorzewska KU WA I T at Bahra 1. These two pottery groups were and the repertoire of shapes varied as well. also identified at other Ubaid-related sites The cultural context and the importance in the Gulf, from Kuwait to Oman, e.g., of Ubaid and Coarse Red Wares for the Abu Khamis, Ain Qannas, Khursaniyah, Gulf inhabitants, as well as the nature of al-Markh, al-Da’asa, Umm al-Quwain the interactions between the Gulf and and others, and they make for the earliest Mesopotamia continue to be a topic for ceramic tradition present in the Gulf. discussion. The Bahra 1 assemblage with The main difference between the two is its recorded more than 16,000 sherds, the fabric: Coarse Red Ware was most representing a wide range of vessel types, probably produced locally, whereas Ubaid offers an excellent opportunity to reconsider pots were imported from Mesopotamia. these pottery groups, especially in the nature Different technologies were applied to the of the relations between the Gulf and manufacturing process of the two groups Mesopotamia during the Ubaid period. UBAID WARE Ubaid Ware prevails at Bahra 1, currently their users. Characteristic motifs included accounting for about 53% of the pottery grids, triangles, sunburst, encircling lines assemblage.1 Plain and painted variants are in reserve on a dark field. Considering both present, and the vessels demonstrate their shape and dimensions (rim diameter a variety of sizes, different morphological ranging from approximately 30 cm up to types and technologies. Represented are 50 cm), these bowls may have been used various bowls and jars, as well as beakers, as large serving vessels for collective use. large rectangular basins and special forms, The elaborate painted decoration must like a “tortoise vessel” [Fig. 1], an anvil- -shaped vessel and a vessel with pouring lip. Bowls appear in a variety of forms and sizes. Simple shapes are accompanied by types showing morphological complexity. Carinated bowls were the prevailing form [Fig. 2], diagnostic for the Ubaid 2 phase, but not a precise chronological indicator, considering that it continued in use in the Ubaid 2/3.2 Bowls of this type were 0 10 cm usually rendered in the Hajji Muhammad style, painted in the reserve technique Fig. 1. “Tortoise vessel” (reconstructed), Ubaid with a set of densely composed patterns Ware from Bahra 1 (Drawing and digi- that made the vessels visually distinct for tizing M. Momot, A. Smogorzewska)

1 The share of Ubaid Ware from the first three excavation seasons was a reported 65% (Smogorzewska 2013). 2 Carinated bowls in Hajji Muhammad style were reported from many sites, e.g., Hajji Muhammad (Ziegler 1953: Pls 11, 14, 15, 16:a), Ras al-Amiya (Stronach 1961: Pls XLVIII:2, XLIX:1–2), Abada level II (Jasim 1985: Fig. 152), Songor A (Fujii 1981: Fig. 35:8), Tell Songor B (Fujii 1981: Fig. 46:7) and Oueili (Lebeau 1991: Pl. I:6–11) in Ubaid 2 and 2/3 context. Carinated bowls with dense grid pattern are also known from the Central Gulf (Ain Qannas) (Masry 1997: Figs 12, 18; Burkholder 1972: 267) and H3 (Carter and Crawford 2010).

596

PAM 25: Research Local and imported pottery in the Neolithic Gulf: a new perspective from the site of Bahra 1... KU WA I T 10 cm 0 2 1 Carinated bowls in Hajji Muhammad style (reconstructed), Ubaid Ware from Bahra 1 Bahra from Ware Ubaid style (reconstructed), Muhammad in Hajji bowls Carinated (Drawing and digitizing E. Hander, M. Momot, A. Smogorzewska) Smogorzewska) A. Momot, M. Hander, E. digitizing and (Drawing

Fig. 2. Fig.

597

PAM 25: Research Anna Smogorzewska KU WA I T have made them prized possessions in of patterns: horizontal bands, wavy lines, terms of both esthetics and prestige. Other zigzag ladder, hanging loops and others. types among the Bahra 1 finds included Judging by their size and decoration, some hemispherical and straight-sided bowls, of the small bowls could have been used with simple and out-turned rims and other for individual drinking or eating. A beaker forms [Fig. 3:1–3], adorned with a variety with S-profile, represented by a single sherd,

1

2

3

4 0 10 cm 4

Fig. 3. Bowls of Ubaid Ware from Bahra 1: 1–3 – bowls; 4 – tall beaker (Drawing and digitizing E. Hander, A. Smogorzewska)

598

PAM 25: Research Local and imported pottery in the Neolithic Gulf: a new perspective from the site of Bahra 1... KU WA I T

1

2

3

0 10 cm

Fig. 4. Large bowls of Ubaid Ware from Bahra 1 (Drawing and digitizing E. Hander, M. Momot, A. Smogorzewska; 3D model E. Mizak)

599

PAM 25: Research Anna Smogorzewska KU WA I T was decorated with a wavy line between Being deeper than other bowls, they could two straight parallel lines [Fig. 3:4].3 have been used for preparing food or short- Also well represented at Bahra 1 are the -term storage. Bowls of this type could large open bowls (rim diameters ranging have also been shown off when serving approximately from 30 cm to 40 cm) with food because of their painted decoration, straight or slightly rounded profiles Fig. 4[ ]. comprising painted circles filled with

1

2 0 10 cm

Fig. 5. Jars of Ubaid Ware from Bahra 1 (note the scale) (Drawing and digitizing E. Hander, A. Smogorzewska; 3D models E. Mizak)

3 The beaker resembles “tall goblets” which are characteristic of the phase (type 32) (Safar and Lloyd 1981: 175). Beakers of this type (some of them carinated) are known from, among others, Eridu level XVI (Safar, Mustafa, and Lloyd 1981: Fig. 96:20), Oueili (Calvet 1987: Pls VI:4, XII:8; XIII:1), Tell Abada levels II and III (Jasim 1985: Figs 100:b–d, 103:b, 196:b,c), in all cases in Ubaid 1 and 2, but also Ubaid 3 layers.

600

PAM 25: Research Local and imported pottery in the Neolithic Gulf: a new perspective from the site of Bahra 1... KU WA I T a dense grid pattern, denticulation at the most numerous [Fig. 5]. They have ovoid rim, horizontal reserve lines, date-pits in or globular bodies and flat bases. Another reserve or a wavy line between two straight type comprises jars with very short necks horizontal lines and other patterns. and globular bodies, which were often Ubaid Ware jars at Bahra 1 present equipped with pierced lugs on the shoulders several morphological types. Jars with high [Fig. 6:4]. The jars vary in size, which cylindrical necks and everted rims, high probably had functional significance. flaring necks or short curved necks are the Middle-sized jars of appropriate shape

1

2

3

4

0 10 cm

Fig. 6. Jars of Ubaid Ware from Bahra 1 (Drawing and digitizing E. Hander, M. Momot, A. Smogorzewska)

601

PAM 25: Research Anna Smogorzewska KU WA I T were suitable for serving. They often bear inner surface in singular, poorly made painted decoration indicating their use vessels. Traces of scraping and other in public [Fig. 6:1–3]. The most popular secondary forming methods, used mostly decorative patterns included diagonal for handmade vessels, can be observed lines, horizontal chevrons, lines in reserve, on many of the potsherds. Most of the horizontal bands, multiple vertical zigzags, Ubaid vessels were fired at medium or squares with diagonals and other temperatures. Some, however, were fired at designs. Larger jars were used for storing or high temperatures, as indicated by the olive moving products. An extra large jar, partly color, typical of calcareous clay fired in preserved, reaches 65 cm in maximum high temperature ranges, and dense fabric. diameter and it could have been originally Three technological classes of Ubaid over 90 cm high [Fig. 5:2]. Its maximum Ware were distinguished: fine ware, capacity was 139 liters. It was adorned common ware and coarse ware. Common with a plastic decoration of round knobs, ware with mineral inclusions is the most unique with regard to the Ubaid-period frequent technological group from pottery. The knobs were arranged in four Bahra 1. Sand inclusions (dark grey/ rows on the vessel shoulder. Other pottery bluish, reddish and translucent grains) are types used for storage are present as well, the most common. Particles are medium for example, coarse-ware barrel-shaped or fine (usually around 0.2–0.3 mm), vessels (rim diameter over 40 cm). well sorted and in significant quantities Large rectangular basins manufactured (many or abundant). Common ware in coarse ware technology were also with medium or coarse sand particles, recognized in the Ubaid Ware repertoire. accompanied sometimes by moderate One of them, crushed into several dozen medium chaff, is less numerous. Fine ware pieces, was originally 54 cm wide and about is characterized by well-levigated clay with 100 cm long [Fig. 7]. Rectangular basins very fine particles. It is usually associated with their large working surface could have with thin-walled (0.1–0.4 cm thick) vessels been convenient for processing different of very smooth surfaces. A characteristic products, although their exact function feature of the coarse ware is chaff temper and the nature of the processed products added to the clay in abundant or moderate remain unknown for the moment. quantities. Some mineral inclusions are Ubaid vessels were handmade. Techni- sometimes present in small number. ques included coiling and slab building. Coarse ware vessels are also distinguished Joints between coils are observed on the by their thick walls (1.3–2.3 cm).

COARSE RED WARE Coarse Red Ware, also known as “straw vessels are distinguished by their red and tempered coarse ware” or “Arabian coarse less often pale brown color. Pale yellow ware” (Burkholder 1972: 268; Oates et slip (or self-slip) covers the surface of al. 1977: 232; Oates 1976: 26; Masry some red-ware pots. The vessels were 1997: 80), makes for approximately 47% fired at low temperatures, probably in of the pottery collected at Bahra 1. These bonfires. This resulted in a dark grey core,

602

PAM 25: Research Local and imported pottery in the Neolithic Gulf: a new perspective from the site of Bahra 1... KU WA I T

Fig. 7. Rectangular basin of Ubaid Ware from Bahra 1 (Photo A. Smogorzewska)

Fig. 8. Mat-impressed bases of Coarse Red Ware from Bahra 1 (Photo A. Oleksiak)

603

PAM 25: Research Anna Smogorzewska KU WA I T

visible in the breaks, and made the ware 1 soft and brittle. Coarse Red Ware vessels were handmade, using the coiling or slab- -building techniques. During the process 2 of forming, baskets or trays could have been used as molds, as mat impressions (both rounded and oval) are visible on the outer surface of some bases [Fig. 8]. 3 Technological similarities can be observed between basketry and pottery-making in the Neolithic of the Near East (Wengrow 2001: 178). Ceramic mat-impressed bases have been found at a number of Neolithic sites, from to and from the Gulf to the Caucasus, e.g., Hajji Firuz, Shir, 4 Aruchlo and others (Vandiver 1987: 18, 27–28; Nieuwenhuyse 2009: Fig. 13; Hansen et al. 2006: Fig. 38). Clay used for Coarse Red Ware manufacture includes chaff, sand, white particles (crushed shells?), red grains and other inclusions. Chaff, added in various quantities (usually moderate or abundant), is the main tempering agent. Some fabrics are distinguished by sand particles (medium or coarse in size) with 5 moderate or scarce addition of chaff. At Bahra 1, Coarse Red Ware is represented by a number of shapes: pots, trays, dishes, bowls, jars and basins [Fig. 9]. Pots were often equipped with plug-in lugs 6 [Figs 9:5].4 Some of the pots are oval in shape. Bowls were also identified Fig. 9:3[ ]

Fig. 9. Coarse Red Ware repertoire: 1– tray; 2 – dish; 3 – bowl; 4 – bowl with pouring lip; 5 – pot with lug handles; 6 – jar; 7 – rect- angular basin (Drawing and digitizing 7 E. Hander, M. Momot, A. Smogorzewska; 0 10 cm photo A. Oleksiak)

4 Pots with lugs, a convenient shape for cooking, are encountered in many Neolithic pottery traditions of the Near East. At , Neolithic pots of Mineral Coarse Ware are similar to Coarse Red Ware pots also in the way the lug is inserted into the pot walls (Nieuwenhuyse 2007: 77–78).

604

PAM 25: Research Local and imported pottery in the Neolithic Gulf: a new perspective from the site of Bahra 1... KU WA I T as well as more shallow vessels, trays and Ware forms from other sites in the Gulf dishes [Fig. 9:1–2]. Some bowls are distinct is difficult to determine because of the for their pouring lip [Fig. 9:4].5 Jars with fragmentary state of preservation of most everted rims and curved necks represent pottery vessels. Pots with lugs, bowls, some another Coarse Red Ware morphological open and closed rims and flat bases (some type [Fig. 9:6]. They vary in size. Jars with with mat impressions), are known from the rim diameter ranging from about 10 cm H3 site (Carter and Crawford 2010: 47) up to 26 cm were registered. Fragments and from Central Gulf sites (Masry 1997: of vessels, most likely belonging to large Pls 37:1, 40:1, Figs 32:1, 47:1). rectangular basins, were also recorded At Bahra 1, single vessels bear simple [Fig. 9:7]. Other forms include miniature lines or zigzags incised at the rim, a feature vessels, such as pots with lugs and bowls, as unusual for Coarse Red Ware, which is for well as a few unique types. Various shapes the most part undecorated [Fig. 10:4]. were recognized at Dosariyah, where A pot with incised geometric patterns Coarse Red Ware is represented by pots from Dosariyah also belongs to the with lugs, dishes, plates, cup-like vessels few exceptions of decorated Coarse Red and bowls (Kainert and Drechsler 2014: Ware (Kainert and Drechsler 2014: 220, 220, Fig. 5). The repertoire of Coarse Red Fig. 6).

PROVENANCE AND CULTURAL RELATIONS Laboratory analyses confirmed significant concentrations of sites yielding Ubaid differences in the chemical composition Ware potsherds: the Northern Gulf with of clay used for the production of Ubaid the sites of Bahra 1 and H3 (Carter and Ware and that used for Coarse Red Ware. Crawford 2010), and the Central Gulf It pointed to different places of origin with a number of sites (Burkholder 1972; of these two pottery groups. Provenance Potts 1990; Oates et al. 1977; Masry 1997; analyses performed in the 1970s proved that Kainert and Drechsler 2014). Coarse Red the Ubaid-style pottery found in the Gulf Ware drops in numbers in the Lower Gulf, originated from southern Mesopotamia where only small quantities have been (Oates et al. 1977). Coarse Red Ware was recorded.6 most probably produced locally in the Gulf Based on a high occurrence of Coarse region; however, clay sources matching Red Ware, the Central Gulf is regarded the chemical composition of Coarse Red as its production center. From there Ware have yet to be identified. There are vessels would have been distributed to two clusters of Coarse Red Ware findspots other regions of the Gulf (Carter and in the Gulf region and they coincide with Crawford 2010: 36, 47).7 However, in view

5 A pot with pouring lip is known from Dosariyah (Kainert and Drechsler 2014: Fig. 5:b). 6 A few Coarse Red Ware fragments are known from al-Da’asa in Qatar (Oates 1976: 26; Potts 1990: 46), DA11 at Dalma Island, Umm al-Quwain and site JH4 at Jazirat al-Hamra in the United Arab Emirates (Carter and Crawford 2010: 36). 7 According to Joan Oates, some Central Gulf sites feature Coarse Red Ware amounting to 60–70% of the pottery assemblages (Oates et al. 1977: 222). Some evidence of local pottery production, such as kiln wasters, was reported from Dosariyah (Oates et al. 1977: 224).

605

PAM 25: Research Anna Smogorzewska KU WA I T of the latest archaeological investigations, Gulf (inspired by the presence of Ubaid especially at the sites of Bahra 1 and Ware) (Carter and Crawford 2010: 67; Dosariyah, this opinion needs to be revised. Magee 2014: 73). Other authors suggest There are arguments supporting the idea that Coarse Red Ware was manufactured that Coarse Red Ware vessels could have locally by Mesopotamian visitors to been produced locally in the Northern the Gulf possessing basic know-how of Gulf, without the effort of importing them pottery making, such as, for instance, from the Central Gulf. This opinion is Ubaid fishermen (Oates et al. 1977: 233; supported by the percentage share of sherds Potts 1990: 58). The joint occurrence of of this ware, amounting to as much as about Coarse Red and Ubaid Wares may argue 47% of the ceramic material at Bahra 1. in favor of cultural relations between these At H3, it is between 20% and 38% two pottery groups. Coarse Red Ware is depending on the period (Carter and attested only at Neolithic sites with Ubaid Crawford 2010: Fig. 3.3). Coarse Red Ware presence and it disappears when the Ware from renewed excavations at latter vanishes. Dosariyah accounts for just 20% of the Identifying Coarse Red Ware as the ceramic assemblage (Kainert and Drechsler first local pottery tradition in the Gulf 2014: 216) rather than the 45–50% region is problematic, however, because presumed previously (Masry 1997: 80– the appearance of pottery at Ubaid-related 81). Moreover, the repertoire of vessel sites in the Gulf did not lead directly to types from Bahra 1 is quite diverse, with the emergence of a local ceramic tradition. a number of them absent from the Central With the disappearance of Ubaid Ware, Gulf sites, rather than being limited to just the only specimens occurring in the a few forms that might have been objects of Gulf in the following periods were a few import from a remote source. imported pieces attesting to contacts with Issues of who produced Coarse Red Mesopotamia (among others, Late Uruk Ware and what was the cultural context of and Jamdat Nasr) (Potts 1990: 63–64). this production are subject to discussion. After the period when Ubaid and Coarse According to some authors, Coarse Red Red Wares were in use, the next notable Ware should be seen as a product of the local pottery tradition was recorded in the Neolithic inhabitants of the Central Gulf in the 3rd millennium BC. UBAID WARE AND COARSE RED WARE: CROSS-POTTERY INTERACTION Interactions observed between Ubaid and vessels imported from Mesopotamia. Such Coarse Red Ware pottery derive from imitations are rare however. At Bahra 1, the concurrent functioning of these two large, rectangular basins made of Coarse ceramic traditions [Fig. 10]. Importantly, Red Ware may have emulated an Ubaid however, these interactions were Ware form, as many imported vessels of this unidirectional: Ubaid Ware forms were type were recorded at the site [Fig. 10:3 imitated in Coarse Red Ware, most likely and 4]. A few basin fragments were also in order to procure cheaper versions of part of the Coarse Red Ware assemblage.

606

PAM 25: Research Local and imported pottery in the Neolithic Gulf: a new perspective from the site of Bahra 1... KU WA I T

Ubaid Ware Coarse Red Ware

1 2

4

3

6

5

8

7

10

9 0 10 cm

Fig. 10. Ubaid Ware and Coarse Red Ware: cross-pottery interactions: 1–2 – round-sided bowl with everted rim; 3–4 – large rectangular basin; 5–6 – jar; 7–8 – carinated bowl; 9–10 – “sauce- boat” vessel (1–8, 10 from Bahra 1; 9 from Ras al ‘Amiya, Stronach 1961: Pl. LVII: 2) (Drawing and digitizing E. Hander, M. Momot, A. Smogorzewska)

607

PAM 25: Research Anna Smogorzewska KU WA I T

Only Coarse Red Ware basins have mat- 220, Fig. 7). Plaster painted vessels from -impressed bases. An additional indication the sites DA11 (Dalma Island) and MR11 of an attempt at imitation is the decoration (Marawah Island) are likely imitations of in the form of zigzags incised on the rim Ubaid pots and may be seen as an indication in both wares. Also the Coarse Red Ware that imported Ubaid vessels reached the jars with curved neck and everted rim, southern part of the Gulf irregularly, and well represented at Bahra 1, may have been local inhabitants attempted to imitate inspired by the Ubaid jars, as implied by them on the spot (Beech 2003: 39; Carter the same shapes recorded in Ubaid Ware 2010: 195, Fig. 15.5). [Fig. 10:5–6]. The round-sided bowls with It has been suggested that the presence everted rims in Coarse Red Ware from of Ubaid Ware stimulated the appearance Bahra 1 are likely imitations of a similar of Coarse Red Ware (Carter and Crawford form from the Ubaid Ware repertoire 2010: 67). However, Coarse Red Ware is [Fig. 10:1–2]. Of interest in the Coarse in evidence at Bahra 1 and other Ubaid- Red Ware collection are two examples -related sites (such as Dosariyah, see of vessels with wing-like vertical handles. Kainert and Drechsler 2014: 222) from They can be imitations of “sauce-boats” the very beginning of settlement there, characteristic of Ubaid Ware [Fig. 10:9– alongside the first examples of Ubaid Ware. 10]. One example of a small carinated Had it been inspired by the Ubaid ceramic bowl, a distinctive shape in Ubaid Ware, tradition, it would have had to appear for was also registered in Coarse Red Ware at the first time in later phases. At Bahra 1, Bahra 1 [Fig. 10:7–8]. Coarse Red Ware is present in a wide range Also other Ubaid-related sites in the of forms without any notable attempts at Gulf region have yielded single examples emulating putative prototypes in Ubaid of local imitations of Ubaid vessels. Two Ware. The occasional efforts made to fragments of jars with inner ledges from imitate Ubaid forms in Coarse Red Ware Dosariyah, made in the Coarse Red Ware prove the interplay of these two pottery technology, imitate forms characteristic of groups and the demand for cheaper, locally- Ubaid Ware (Kainert and Drechsler 2014: -made copies of Ubaid vessels. FUNCTION OF UBAID WARE AND COARSE RED WARE IN THE GULF Considering differences in technology for cooking, whereas Coarse Red Ware and forms between Ubaid and Coarse pots with lugs were well-suited for that Red Wares, the two wares could have purpose. Moreover, trays of Coarse Red had largely different functions and their Ware could have been used for cooking or joint appearance at Gulf sites points grilling (Henrickson and McDonald 1983: to a complementary nature of these 631–632).8 Such trays, well represented at functions. Ubaid Ware lacks forms suitable the Bahra 1 settlement, could have been

8 At Sarab, a 6th-millennium site in Iran, round and oval trays could have been used for parching grain or bread baking, or for drying foodstuffs (Henrickson and McDonald 1983: 638).

608

PAM 25: Research Local and imported pottery in the Neolithic Gulf: a new perspective from the site of Bahra 1... KU WA I T placed over fireplaces just like cooking serve food. Considering differences in size, pots. Jars and bowls were used for cooking, smaller trays and dishes may have served too, as indicated by parallels from other individual meals, while the larger ones sites. At Kenan Tepe, an Ubaid-related served families. They are, however, coarse site in southeastern , two types of and usually carelessly made, the surface putative cooking vessels were recognized rough and without any kind of decoration. based on the correlation between fabric Consequently, they could have been used and sooting: hole-mouthed jars and open as serving dishes in non-public, domestic bowls (Parker and Kennedy 2010: 6).9 contexts. Moreover, a small sample of While pots with lugs and trays appear only Coarse Red Ware represents vessels which in Coarse Red Ware, jars, basins and some were not used in any domestic context. open bowls are encountered both in Ubaid The existence of miniature vessels and and Coarse Red Wares, indicating that the special forms proves that Coarse Red Ware functions of these two wares overlapped to included vessels not necessarily connected some extent. with kitchen or household activities.10 However, such forms are few and the bulk COARSE RED WARE of Coarse Red Ware vessels was used for Coarse Red Ware is usually classified as domestic purposes. a kitchen ware, based foremost on its coarse fabric, shapes and traces of sooting UBAID WARE (Masry 1997: 239; Carter and Crawford The function of Ubaid vessels in the Gulf 2010: 33). Its function must have been as well as how they got there are issues more versatile, as implicated by the large open to discussion. According to one view, variety of forms in the Bahra 1 repertoire. Mesopotamians may have carried pottery Coarse Red Ware vessels could have in their packs when travelling in the been used in a wide range of household Gulf region (Oates et al. 1977: 232). In activities, not solely for cooking (pots, a different model, Ubaid pots found their trays, some bowls and jars?), but also way into the Gulf region in the course for food preparation and processing of long-distance trade exchange with (bowls, basins), as well as for storage and Mesopotamia (Carter 2006; 2010; Carter transportation (jars). The ware, however, and Crawford 2010). Imported Ubaid was not designed as a special-purpose Ware is believed to have had a special ware. It lacks luxury tableware used for role in Gulf communities, focusing on display while serving and presenting food. the vessels’ symbolic function as a major A few examples of Coarse Red Ware could conveyor of social status and element of have been used as cups, considering their display (Carter 2006: 58–59). Taking shape and size. Also, some of the trays and into consideration the prevalence of open dishes for cooking may have been used to shapes, as well as the presence of elaborate

9 Also at Hajji Firuz large open bowls were used for cooking (Voigt 1983: 159). At Kamiltepe, a Neolithic site (6th millennium BC) in Azerbaijan, truncated-conical bowls might have been used for cooking, considering that they have sooting on the outside (D’Anna 2012: 42). 10 Coarse Red Ware from Bahra 1 includes also small items like conical rings, pegs, flanged discs, spindle whorls and cupped cones (Reiche 2013).

609

PAM 25: Research Anna Smogorzewska KU WA I T painted decoration, a large number of like either a set of selected vessel types the Ubaid vessels can be considered that reached the site by means of trade luxury tableware used for serving food. exchange or a group of ceramic containers Lavishly decorated Ubaid vessels seem left over after the commodities imported to have served a public purpose, such as in them had been used. social acts of consumption (Karsgaard The prevalence of open pottery shapes 2010: 54; Crawford 2010: 166). After all is taken as an argument supporting the feasting played an important role in social exchange model and defining a social life (Helwing 2003). Specially designed and special-purpose function of Ubaid serving vessels are assumed to be one of the pottery in the Gulf (Carter 2006: 59). indicators of feasting in the archaeological A high number of Bahra 1 jars suitable for record (Hayden 2001: 40). The elaborately storage and transportation, as well as other decorated carinated bowls of Ubaid Ware utilitarian vessels reveal the function of seem to have been perfectly designed for Ubaid Ware in the Gulf to be more varied communal consumption. than previously assumed. At Bahra 1, open Examination of the pottery assemblage shapes make up 54% of the Ubaid pottery from Bahra 1 revises the opinion about assemblage (based on the results of seven the high status and showcasing function seasons of excavation until 2014). Jars and ofUbaid Ware as a commodity. The wide pots account for 40%, while the remaining array of pottery types, varying in shape, 6% of the assemblage is made up of special technology and size, indicates that Ubaid types (based on a rim sherd count). Ware played diverse roles in the life of The share of jars is significantly higher the inhabitants of Bahra 1, extending than at the nearby site H3, where closed well beyond the social needs of the Gulf forms constitute barely 22% of the Ubaid people. Many examples of common and pottery, while open shapes account for coarse Ubaid Ware vessels intended for 78% (Carter and Crawford 2010: 60).11 household activities accompanied the Open shapes prevail also at other sites, luxury tableware. Among them were large while jars are rare finds (e.g., at Dosariyah jars for storing and moving goods, and 11% of pottery sherds belonged to open rectangular basins for processing various shapes while 6.5% to closed forms, Kainert products. This assemblage does not look and Drechsler 2014: 217).

ITEMS OF EXCHANGE: LOCAL RESOURCES AND INDUSTRIES IN THE NEOLITHIC GULF It is a moot point what kind of goods and a raw material for the production were taken in exchange for the Ubaid of various items, hence they could well pottery. Marine resources, such as fish or have been the commodity sought by the shellfish, were important as food supplies Mesopotamians for barter in the Gulf.

11 Considering the function of the Ubaid Ware jars, it should be noted that the jars recorded at Bahra 1 could have been used for more purposes than just storage and transport. The small and middle-sized painted jars could have been intended for serving or display.

610

PAM 25: Research Local and imported pottery in the Neolithic Gulf: a new perspective from the site of Bahra 1... KU WA I T

Goods like flint, obsidian and livestock or oyster shells were also reported from Abu animal products have also been suggested Khamis, which indicates that this may have as possible items of exchange (Oates et al. been a specialized pearling site (Oates et al. 1977: 233; Carter and Crawford 2010: 1977: 233; Oates 1976: 26). 199). Some inhabitants of the Neolithic Local bead industries were identified Gulf were clearly focused on gathering at some sites in the Gulf at the time of specific marine resources (pearls, mollusks, the interaction with Mesopotamia. Shell fish).12 Others were busier producing jewelry was produced on a significant ornaments from locally available shells. scale at Bahra 1 and H3. It is noticeable Of the various Gulf resources, pearls and that these sites, which are located close to “made in the Gulf ” shell jewelry can be one another, focused on the production of suggested as possible commodities coveted entirely different types of beads. Bahra 1 by the Mesopotamians, who offered luxury was a production center specializing in pottery in exchange.13 The problem with the manufacture of tubular beads made of this theory is the absence of potential Gulf Conomurex persicus shells (Reiche 2011: imports, such as pearls or shell beads, in 78–79). There is an abundance of failed Mesopotamia, not found probably because beads as well as microlithic tools, such of their small size. as drills or borers that were used in the Pearls were always part of the Neolithic production process. Shell tubular beads Gulf tradition as evidenced by the produced at Bahra 1 were clearly not for increasing number of finds. Approximately use by the inhabitants of the settlement, 100 pearls have been recorded so far from but must have been traded to other regions, Neolithic Arabia, from Kuwait (H3), because all that has ever been found at the Saudi Arabia (Dosariyah), United Arab site are fragments of beads and waste pieces. Emirates and Oman (Charpentier, Phillips, At H3, the bead industry was focused and Méry 2012: 1, Table 1). Evidence on disc shell beads, particularly made from H3, Jebel al-Buhais, Dosariyah and of Acrosterigma lacunosa and Spondylus Umm al-Quwain 2 shows that pearls were marisrubri shells; these were the most collected as early as 5500–5000 BC. Vast common ornaments at H3 (Carter and deposits of marine molluscs clearly indicate Crawford 2010: 71–74).15 Production of collection of oysters on a significant scale standardized types of shell jewelry at these in the Gulf. It has been suggested that two sites and careful selection of mollusks Dosariyah may have been a settlement for bead production16 are noteworthy as of specialized pearl collectors (Drechsler they indicate the existence of specialized 2012: 493).14 Significant numbers of shell bead industries in the Neolithic Gulf.

12 A specialized fishery has been suggested for Khor FB (Potts 1990: 50) and the site of RH-6 (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2003: 247). 13 It has already been suggested that pearls could have been valuable items for which ceramics may have been traded (Oates et al. 1977: 233; Uerpmann and Uerpmann 1996: 135; Carter 2005: 164). 14 Pearl oysters account for over 90% of the shells at Dosariyah (Drechsler 2012: 493). 15 Small mother-of-pearl plaques of various shapes were also a highly distinctive shell ornament at H3 (Carter and Craw- ford 2010: 75). 16 While Conomurex persicus mollusks are abundant at Bahra 1, at H3 they account barely for 3.8% of the shellfish assem- blage (Carter and Crawford 2010: 160).

611

PAM 25: Research Anna Smogorzewska KU WA I T

BAHRA 1 AND H3: NORTHERN ZONE OF CONTACTS Bahra 1 and H3 demonstrate strong Bahra 1 considering its size and the nature Mesopotamian presence.17 Mesopotamian of the architectural remains. Notable is the feaures in the material culture are more predominance of rectilinear architecture varied and numerous compared to other and a certain standardization of space and Ubaid-related sites in the Gulf. These the type of houses (Bieliński 2011; 2013). close connections of the Northern Gulf Substantial stone-built architecture is of sites with Mesopotamia reflect their greater complexity than that known from geographical location, just a short distance the Neolithic Gulf. Mobile communities from the southernmost Mesopotamian living in temporary camps were a common sites (approximately 200 km in a straight feature of the Arabian landscape in the line). Moreover, there is some evidence to Neolithic period, while the archaeological suggest that by the second half of the 6th evidence of sedentary life in permanent millennium BC, the open sea extended from settlements during this time is generally the Northern Gulf up to the southernmost scarce (Drechsler 2012: 485–486). Ubaid sites (Ur, Oueili, Eridu) (Pournelle Based on a pottery analysis and the 2003). Access to the sea and to water results of radiocarbon dating, it seems that transport enabled the emergence of Bahra 1 and H3 were contemporaneous a maritime trading relationship between (or at least largely overlapping in time). the southern Mesopotamian sites and the H3 is dated to the Ubaid 2/3 period Gulf in the Ubaid period. (5300–4900 BC, see Carter and Crawford The relationship between the sites 2010: 201). The available evidence shows of Bahra 1 and H3 is an interesting issue that Bahra 1 could have been established which requires further consideration.18 a little earlier (Ubaid 2–3a, about 5500– Bahra 1 is located over 7 km from the 4900 BC). Despite doubts concerning present coastline. This distance was much the value of the Hajji Muhammad Ware shorter in antiquity, still the site had never as a precise chronological marker, the been located on the seashore (Kiersnowski frequent occurrence of this pottery at 2013). Relations of Bahra 1 with the nearby Bahra 1 indicates that the settlement could H3, which had access to the sea, are of great have been founded as early as the Ubaid 2 interest in this context. There are many period. The site of H3 could have been similarities in the material culture of these inhabited already in the Ubaid 2, although two settlements. Significant differences can the Ubaid 2 ware is less common compared also be observed, the most evident being to the Bahra 1 assemblage. Bahra 1 and H3 the architecture (rectilinear architecture seem the earliest Ubaid-related sites in the at Bahra 1 and cellular structures at H3). Gulf, and they could have been founded Permanent occupation can be suggested for as early as the Ubaid 2 period. Most of the

17 Carter distinguished three zones of contacts in the Gulf during the interaction of this region with Mesopotamia (Carter and Crawford 2010: 206–207). Site H3 in the Northern zone was considered the most ‘Mesopotamian’. 18 This subject merits more attention and will be discussed in detail elsewhere.

612

PAM 25: Research Local and imported pottery in the Neolithic Gulf: a new perspective from the site of Bahra 1... KU WA I T

Ubaid-related sites in the Gulf are dated to Ubaid 2 pottery (or Ubaid 2 with relics to the Ubaid 2/3–Ubaid 4 periods.19 At in Ubaid 2/3), are generally more varied both sites there is no evidence of Ubaid 4 and numerous (see Smogorzewska 2015). occupation, meaning that the Ubaid 4 At both sites, Ubaid pottery is not limited pottery known from some Central Gulf to luxury items, because vessels used in sites could have reached this region without household activities are also represented. the mediation of the Northern Gulf. Large vessels are more numerous at Bahra 1, Bahra 1 and H3 present similar pottery while at H3 they are rare (a couple of large assemblages. Early pottery types and jar rims[?] and a couple of basins) (Carter decorative motifs, distinctive of the Ubaid and Crawford 2010: Fig. 3.15:15–16). 2 and 2/3 periods, such as carinated bowls The presence of large rectangular basins of and ornaments like sunburst, dense grid or Ubaid Ware at both sites has significance, reserve lines and zigzags, were recognized as such basins are not attested at other at both sites. At Bahra 1, features related Ubaid-related sites in the Gulf. THE MESOPOTAMIA–GULF INTERACTION: NEW PERSPECTIVE FROM BAHRA 1 The Bahra 1 pottery assemblage is been connected with adapting these vessels a functionally diverse group of vessels to local needs. Originally, the Ubaid Ware essential to the community using them in vessel forms were related to agricultural varied socio-economic contexts. A plausible economies, while the economic base of scenario is that the Ubaid Ware found its the Bahra 1 settlement — and of other way to the Gulf as a result of goods exchange Neolithic sites in the Gulf — was based on with Mesopotamia and was adopted by hunting, livestock herding and, foremost, local Neolithic communities. Accepting on shellfish gathering and fishing.20 Ubaid Ware by the Gulf population not At Bahra 1, the Ubaid Ware vessels for just as exotic goods, but also because of its storing and processing would have been utilitarian function, was possible only in used not for agricultural products, but the context of economic and social changes. rather for livestock and seafood-related Moreover, the Neolithic population at products, since no definite proof of Bahra 1 must have adopted a broad array agriculture was found at the site. If we of pottery vessels during a relatively short assume that the Ubaid vessels were objects time. The range of vessel forms used by its of exchange, their large number and inhabitants for various purposes was wide diversity of forms at Bahra 1 would be from the start. The use of Ubaid Ware by proof of a large demand for ceramic vessels. the inhabitants of Bahra 1 would have In the context of the Neolithic Gulf, one

19 Pottery in Hajji Muhammad style, such as carinated bowls, are known from Central Gulf sites, such as Abu Khamis, Ain Qannas or Al-Da’asa, where it is accompanied by Ubaid 3 pottery (Masry 1997: Fig. 18, 90:1; Burkholder 1972: 267; Oates 1976: 26). However, the occupation in the Ubaid 2 period cannot be surely stated for this region, because such finds are rare and of equivocal chronological value. 20 A preliminary study of animal bones from Bahra 1 revealed the presence of wild species (gazelle, antelope, jackal, hare) as well as domesticated ones (mainly sheep and goat, some cattle) (Piątkowska-Małecka 2013: 124–130).

613

PAM 25: Research Anna Smogorzewska KU WA I T may wonder with regard to the demand have been acquired indirectly, by means of for ceramic vessels among fishermen, exchange. hunters and shellfish gatherers. Mobile Bahra 1 represents a mix of local and communities of Neolithic Arabia living Mesopotamian traits in its material culture. in small, ephemeral camps, would have There are significantly many features of been using containers made of organic Mesopotamian origin present at Bahra 1 materials, such as grass, palm leaves and (varied Ubaid vessels and small finds, such animal skins, for storing and carrying. The as flanged discs, pegs, cupped cones and craft of plaiting mats and containers was spindle whorls, more frequent in Coarse known in the Neolithic period, as proved Red Ware). Also the extent and complexity by impressions on the Coarse Red Ware of the architecture find no parallels in the vessels. Neolithic Gulf. Local features are apparent Another scenario to consider is that in the lithics (Kozłowski 2013) and shell Mesopotamians brought Ubaid pottery ornaments. The significant Mesopotamian with them when they moved to a region presence observed at Bahra 1 could have with no pottery vessels available. Taking resulted from close and direct contacts with into consideration the location of the Mesopotamia. The nearby H3 is assumed settlement and its early dating, Bahra 1 to be a settlement inhabited by an Arabian could have been established by the Neolithic group who adopted some aspects Mesopotamians to serve as the first way- of Ubaid material culture (Carter and station, especially during the first phase of Crawford 2010: 86). At Bahra 1, it seems contacts between Mesopotamia and the justified to assume the actual presence of Gulf. While the presence of Ubaid Ware the Ubaid Mesopotamians who visited the at Bahra 1 (and generally in the Northern site frequently or stayed there for a long Gulf ) may be considered in the context time. Their presence at Bahra 1 (at least of an actual Mesopotamian presence, at seasonal) may have been related to shell the more remote settlements, especially bead production, which seems to have been in the Lower Gulf, Ubaid Ware could the main activity of the inhabitants there.

Dr. Anna Smogorzewska Institute of Archaeology, University of Warsaw 00-497 Warsaw, Poland, ul. Krakowskie Przedmieście 26/28 [email protected]

REFERENCES

Beech, M. (2013). In the land of the Ichthyophagi – Prehistoric occupation of the coast and islands of the southern Arabian Gulf: A regional review. Adumatu, 27, 31–48 Bieliński, P. (2011). Bahra 1: a prehistoric settlement. In Ł. Rutkowski (ed.), Kuwaiti–Polish archaeological investigations in Northern Kuwait. As-Sabbiya 2007–2010 (pp. 32–37). Al-Jahra–Warsaw: National Council for Culture, Arts and Letters of the State of Kuwait; PCMA UW

614

PAM 25: Research Local and imported pottery in the Neolithic Gulf: a new perspective from the site of Bahra 1... KU WA I T

Bieliński, P. (2013). Bahra 1 settlement. An overview of main features investigated during the fourth season of excavations. In As-Sabbiya. Autumn 2012. Report on the eighth season of joint Kuwaiti–Polish archaeological investigations in Kuwait: Bahra 1, Ubaid culture related settlement (4th season) (pp. 8–52). Unpubl. report Burkholder, G. (1972). Ubaid sites and pottery in Saudi Arabia. Archaeology, 25, 264–269 Calvet, Y. (1987). Le sondage X 36 de Tell el ‘Oueili. In J.-L. Huot (ed.), Larsa (10e campagne, 1983) et ʼOueili (4e campagne, 1983): rapport préliminaire [=Bibliothèque de la Délégation archéologique française en 4] (pp. 33–93). Paris: Éditions recherche sur les civilisations Carter, R. (2005). The history and prehistory of pearling in the Persian Gulf.Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 48(2), 139–209 Carter, R. (2006). Boat remains and maritime trade in the Persian Gulf during the sixth and fifth millennia BC. Antiquity, 80(307), 52–63 Carter, R. (2010). The social and environmental context of Neolithic seafaring in the Persian Gulf. In A. Anderson, J.H. Barrett, and K.V. Boyle (eds), The global origins and development of seafaring (pp. 191–202). Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge Carter, R.A. and Crawford, H. (eds). (2010). Maritime interactions in the Arabian Neolithic: Evidence from H3, As-Sabiyah, an Ubaid-related site in Kuwait [=American School of Prehistoric Research Monograph Series 8]. Boston: Brill Charpentier, V., Phillips, C.S., and Méry, S. (2012). Pearl fishing in the ancient world: 7500 BP. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy, 23(1), 1–6 Crawford, H. (2010). The term “Hajji Muhammad”: a re-evaluation. In R.A. Carter and G. Philip (eds), Beyond the Ubaid: Transformation and integration in the late prehistoric societies of the Middle East [=SAOC 63] (pp. 163–168). Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago D’Anna , M.B. (2012). The pottery of Kamiltepe (MPS 1). In B. Lyonnet et al., Ancient Kura 2010– 2011: the first two seasons of joint field work in the Southern Caucasus.Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan, 44, 38–44 Drechsler, P. (2012). The Arabian Peninsula. In D.T. Potts (ed.),A companion to the archaeology of the (pp. 485–500). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell Fujii, H. (1981). Preliminary report of excavations at Gubba and Songor [=Rāfidān 2]. Tokyo: Kokushikan University Hansen, S., Mirtskhulava, G., Bastert-Lamprichs, K., Benecke, N., Gatsov, I., and Nedelcheva, P. (2006). Aruchlo 2005–2006. Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in einem neolithischen Siedlungshügel. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan, 38, 1–34 Hayden, B. (2001). Fabulous feasts: A prolegomenon to the importance of feasting. In M. Dietler and B. Hayden (eds), Feasts: Archaeological and ethnographic perspectives on food, politics, and power (pp. 23–64). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press Helwing, B. (2003). Feasts as a social dynamic in Prehistoric Western Asia — three case studies from Syria and Anatolia. Paléorient, 29(2), 63–85 Henrickson, E.F. and McDonald, M.M.A. (1983). Ceramic form and function: an ethnographic search and an archeological application. American Anthropologist, 85(3), 630–643

615

PAM 25: Research Anna Smogorzewska KU WA I T

Jasim, S.A. (1985). The Ubaid period in Iraq: Recent excavations in the Hamrin region [=BAR IS 267]. Oxford: B.A.R. Kainert, C. and Drechsler, P. (2014). An interplay of imports and local traditions? The pottery assemblage from Dosariyah, Saudi Arabia. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies, 44, 213–226 Karsgaard, P. (2010). The Halaf-Ubaid transition: A transformation without a center? In R.A. Carter and G. Philip (eds), Beyond the Ubaid: Transformation and integration in the late prehistoric societies of the Middle East [=SAOC 63] (pp. 51–67). Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago Kiersnowski, H. (2013). 2012 geological and geomorphologic survey in the Bahra area. In As-Sabbiya. Autumn 2012. Report on the eighth season of joint Kuwaiti–Polish archaeological investigations in Kuwait: Bahra 1, Ubaid culture related settlement (4th season) (pp. 106–109). Unpubl. report

Kozłowski, S.K. (2013). Chipped flint industries of Bahra 1. InAs-Sabbiya. Autumn 2012. Report on the eighth season of joint Kuwaiti–Polish archaeological investigations in Kuwait: Bahra 1, Ubaid culture related settlement (4th season) (pp. 72–82). Unpubl. report

Lebeau, M. (1991). La céramique Obeid 1 de Tell el’Oueili. Rapport préliminaire. In J.-L. Huot (ed.), ’Oueili: travaux de 1985 [=Bibliothèque de la Délégation archéologique française en Iraq 6] (pp. 211–240). Paris: Éditions recherche sur les civilisations Magee, P. (2014). The archaeology of prehistoric Arabia: Adaptation and social formation from the Neolithic to the Iron Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Masry, A.H. (1997). Prehistory in northeastern Arabia: The problem of interregional interaction. London: Kegan Paul International Nieuwenhuyse, O. (2007). Plain and painted pottery: The rise of Neolithic ceramic styles on the Syrian and Northern Mesopotamian plains. Turnhout: Brepols Nieuwenhuyse, O. (2009). The ceramics from Shir: a first assessment.Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie, 2, 310–356 Oates, J. (1976). Prehistory in Northeastern Arabia. Antiquity, 50(197), 20–31 Oates, J., Davidson, T.E., Kamilli, D., and McKerrell, H. (1977). Seafaring merchants of Ur? Antiquity, 51(203), 221–234 Parker, B.J. and Kennedy, J.R. (2010). A quantitative attribute analysis of the Ubaid-period ceramic corpus from Kenan Tepe. BASOR, 358, 1–26 Piątkowska-Małecka, J. (2013). Analysis of animal bone remains from Bahra 1 — sectors SBH35 and SBH38. In As-Sabbiya. Autumn 2012. Report on the eighth season of joint Kuwaiti– Polish archaeological investigations in Kuwait: Bahra 1, Ubaid culture related settlement (4th season) (pp. 124–152). Unpubl. report Potts, D.T. (1990). The Arabian Gulf in antiquity I. From prehistory to the fall of the Achaemenid Empire. Oxford: Clarendon Press Pournelle, J.R. (2003). Marshland of cities: Deltaic landscapes and the evolution of early Mesopotamian civilization (unpubl. Ph.D. diss.). University of California, San Diego

616

PAM 25: Research Local and imported pottery in the Neolithic Gulf: a new perspective from the site of Bahra 1... KU WA I T

Reiche, A. (2011). Bahra 1. Small finds from the second season. InAs-Sabbiya. Autumn 2010. Report on the fifth season of joint Kuwaiti–Polish archaeological investigations in northern Kuwait: Bahra 1, Ubaid culture related settlement site; SMQ 49, tumulus grave in the Mugheira area and geomorphological survey (pp. 77–97). Unpubl. report Reiche, A. (2013). Bahra 1. Small finds from the 2012 season. InAs-Sabbiya. Autumn 2012. Report on the eighth season of joint Kuwaiti–Polish archaeological investigations in Kuwait: Bahra 1, Ubaid culture related settlement (4th season) (pp. 98–123). Unpubl. report Safar, F., Mustafa, M.A., and Lloyd, S. (1981). Eridu. Baghdad: Republic of Iraq, Ministry of Culture and Information, State Organization of Antiquites and Heritage Smogorzewska, A. (2013). Pottery from Bahra 1 (Kuwait). New evidence for the presence of Ubaid culture in the Gulf. PAM, 22, 555–568 Smogorzewska, A. (2015). Hajji Muhammad Ware in the Gulf. New data from the Ubaid-related site Bahra 1 (Kuwait). EtTrav, 28, 141–158 Stronach, D. (1961). Excavations at Ras al ’Amiya. Iraq, 23(2), 95–137 Uerpmann, H.-P. and Uerpmann, M. (2003). Stone age sites and their natural environment [=Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients. Reihe A: Naturwissenschaften 31/3]. Wiesbaden: Reichert Uerpmann, M. and Uerpmann, H.-P. (1996). ’Ubaid pottery in the eastern Gulf – new evidence from Umm al-Qaiwain (U.A.E.). Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy, 7(2), 125–139 Vandiver, P.B. (1987). Sequential slab construction; a conservative Southwest Asiatic ceramic tradition, ca. 7000–3000 B.C. Paléorient, 13(2), 9–35 Voig t, M.M. (1983). Hajji Firuz Tepe, Iran: The Neolithic settlement [=Hasanlu Excavation Reports 1]. Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania Wengrow, D. (2001). The evolution of simplicity: aesthetic labour and social change in the Neolithic Near East. World Archaeology, 33(2), 168–188 Ziegler, C. (1953). Die Keramik von der Qalʻa des Haǧǧi Mohammed. Berlin: Gebr. Mann

617

PAM 25: Research